Tightening Security After Navy Yard Tragedy Becomes a Balancing Act

Charles S. Clark, Government Executive
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Charles S. Clark, Government Executive
Dec. 18, 2013, 6:02 a.m.

Les­sons from Septem­ber’s Wash­ing­ton Navy Yard shoot­ings should not in­clude ex­pand­ing met­al-de­tect­or searches, build­ing-se­cur­ity ex­perts said on Tues­day.

But next steps ought to in­volve im­proved train­ing of guards and heightened mon­it­or­ing of agency com­pli­ance with re­com­men­ded risk-mit­ig­a­tion pro­ced­ures.

Of­fi­cials from the Home­land Se­cur­ity and De­fense de­part­ments de­fen­ded the pro­gress that’s been made on build­ing se­cur­ity gov­ern­mentwide since the in­cid­ent, in which men­tally troubled con­tract­or Aaron Alex­is brought weapons in­to Navy Yard Build­ing 197 and murdered 12 co-work­ers.

“In the af­ter­math, it is only nat­ur­al that we won­der if all people en­ter­ing a fed­er­al fa­cil­ity — even em­ploy­ees — should be screened in some way,” said Sen­at­or Tom Carp­er ( D-Del.), chair­man of the Sen­ate Home­land Se­cur­ity and Gov­ern­ment­al Af­fairs Com­mit­tee. “Should we — to bor­row a phrase from Ron­ald Re­agan — ‘trust, but veri­fy?’”

Carp­er framed the hear­ing by ask­ing how agen­cies de­term­ine the threats to their spe­cif­ic fa­cil­it­ies; wheth­er agen­cies are prop­erly as­sess­ing and pri­or­it­iz­ing the vul­ner­ab­il­it­ies; and how they are re­spond­ing to threats as they evolve.

Tough ques­tion­ing came from Sen­at­or Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), who faul­ted both the in­ter­gov­ern­ment­al body ad­vising agen­cies on im­prov­ing se­cur­ity and the qual­ity of train­ing of primar­ily con­tract guards in con­front­ing act­ive shoot­ers. “There doesn’t seem to be a lot of co­ordin­a­tion and when there is, there’s not much fol­low-up,” she said. “When the pub­lic sees a uni­formed se­cur­ity guard sit­ting at a desk, there’s an aura of power” ex­cept that the guard’s cap­ab­il­it­ies and role are not clear. “It sends the wrong mes­sage to the pub­lic.”

Though loc­al com­mand­ers have the op­tion of re­quir­ing ran­dom screen­ing of people en­ter­ing a fa­cil­ity, “the draw­back to screen­ing is a neg­at­ive im­pact on mis­sion,” said Steph­en Lewis, deputy dir­ect­or for per­son­nel, in­dus­tri­al and phys­ic­al se­cur­ity policy at the Of­fice of the Un­der­sec­ret­ary of De­fense for In­tel­li­gence. “With 10,000 people com­ing in the same win­dow, there’s a dis­in­cent­ive to get­ting the work done.”

Once back­ground checks are per­formed, “you have to trust the sys­tem,” said Caitlin Durkovich, Home­land Se­cur­ity’s as­sist­ant sec­ret­ary for in­fra­struc­ture pro­tec­tion. “There are op­por­tun­ity costs and re­source im­plic­a­tions” to check­ing every­one.

Some agen­cies, such as the Trans­port­a­tion De­part­ment, already screen all em­ploy­ees, said L. Eric Pat­ter­son, dir­ect­or of the Fed­er­al Pro­tect­ive Ser­vice. “But after a back­ground check, people are trust­worthy, so I would think this through care­fully.”

In dis­cuss­ing solu­tions, wit­nesses said all agen­cies are study­ing re­sponses to act­ive shoot­ers. They poin­ted to the lim­its on train­ing of guards, who, dur­ing a crisis, fo­cus on shield­ing and evac­u­at­ing em­ploy­ees but de­pend on loc­al law en­force­ment un­der vary­ing state laws to pur­sue an at­tack­er. They are per­mit­ted to con­front a live shoot­er on sight but can­not leave their posts in pur­suit, which re­quires find­ing “a happy me­di­um” between re­spond­ing and keep­ing se­cur­ity of­ficers safe, Pat­ter­son said. “There are thou­sands of build­ings, and we don’t have re­sources to put law en­force­ment in every build­ing.”

Durkovich said gov­ern­mentwide pro­tec­tion is a “risk-based pro­cess.” Not all build­ings are the same, she said, not­ing that strategies dif­fer for urb­an versus rur­al build­ings and, for ex­ample, for build­ings that have child care cen­ters or his­tor­ic des­ig­na­tions.

She ac­know­ledged un­der ques­tion­ing that com­pli­ance with re­com­mend­a­tions of the in­ter­gov­ern­ment­al pan­el set up after the 1993 bomb­ing of the fed­er­al build­ing in Ok­lahoma City has been left to the agen­cies them­selves.

Pat­ter­son said his agency has met six of 13 Gov­ern­ment Ac­count­ab­il­ity Of­fice re­com­mend­a­tions for im­prove­ments in train­ing and com­mu­nic­a­tion with staff. GAO ana­lyst Mark Gold­stein, however, test­i­fied that FPS “con­tin­ues to lack ef­fect­ive man­age­ment con­trols to en­sure its guards have met its train­ing and cer­ti­fic­a­tion re­quire­ments.”

Lewis said since the Navy Yard at­tack, the Pentagon has con­duc­ted “in­tern­al re­views of gaps and de­fi­cien­cies and shared oth­er agency best prac­tices.” He ex­pressed prom­ise in a new “en­ter­prise-wide” tool called the Iden­tity Man­age­ment En­ter­prise Ser­vices Ar­chi­tec­ture that provides real-time vet­ting of in­di­vidu­als re­quir­ing un­es­cor­ted ac­cess against mul­tiple data­bases.

Re­prin­ted with per­mis­sion from Gov­ern­ment Ex­ec­ut­ive. The ori­gin­al story can be found here.

This art­icle was pub­lished in Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire, which is pro­duced in­de­pend­ently by Na­tion­al Journ­al Group un­der con­tract with the Nuc­le­ar Threat Ini­ti­at­ive. NTI is a non­profit, non­par­tis­an group work­ing to re­duce glob­al threats from nuc­le­ar, bio­lo­gic­al, and chem­ic­al weapons.

What We're Following See More »
Trump Draws Laughs, Boos at Al Smith Dinner
6 hours ago

After a lighthearted beginning, Donald Trump's appearance at the Al Smith charity dinner in New York "took a tough turn as the crowd repeatedly booed the GOP nominee for his sharp-edged jokes about his rival Hillary Clinton."

McMullin Leads in New Utah Poll
13 hours ago

Evan McMul­lin came out on top in a Emer­son Col­lege poll of Utah with 31% of the vote. Donald Trump came in second with 27%, while Hillary Clin­ton took third with 24%. Gary John­son re­ceived 5% of the vote in the sur­vey.

Quinnipiac Has Clinton Up by 7
13 hours ago

A new Quin­nipi­ac Uni­versity poll finds Hillary Clin­ton lead­ing Donald Trump by seven percentage points, 47%-40%. Trump’s “lead among men and white voters all but” van­ished from the uni­versity’s early Oc­to­ber poll. A new PPRI/Brook­ings sur­vey shows a much bigger lead, with Clinton up 51%-36%. And an IBD/TIPP poll leans the other way, showing a vir­tu­al dead heat, with Trump tak­ing 41% of the vote to Clin­ton’s 40% in a four-way match­up.

Trump: I’ll Accept the Results “If I Win”
14 hours ago
Who Spoke More During the Final Debate?
19 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.